Readers respond: Is it time to tinker with Prop. 13?

What unmitigated gall for California politicians to even suggest that our taxes in California may be too low. They just passed Proposition 30 and approved spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money for the costliest boondoggle in American history, namely the high-speed rail. Now they want to go after Prop. 13 again and close up some so-called "loopholes.''

Prior to Prop. 13, property taxes were out of control, and many elderly people were among the hardest hit. Even though they paid off their mortgages, they were at risk of losing their homes because they couldn't afford property taxes. Almost 60 percent of California voters voted for Prop. 13 because it would take power away from the tax collectors, and give it back to the taxpayers.

Under Prop. 13, the property tax rate is set at 1 percent throughout the state, and property tax increases are limited to no more than 2 percent a year as long as the property is not sold. Once sold, the property is reassessed at 1 percent of the new market value with the same 2 percent cap on annual tax increases. New buyers will always be aware of what their taxes will be and know the maximum amount property taxes can increase each year as long as they own the property. Prop. 13 protects homeowners and taxpayers by requiring a two-thirds vote to pass certain tax increases, including state sales and income tax. The two-thirds vote protection is particularly critical when it comes to property taxes and has been repeatedly attacked by pro-tax coalitions wanting to eliminate it. Homeowners and renters have benefited from Prop. 13. Any questions, contact Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association at 213-384-9656, or email them at info@hjta.org.

Proposition 13 is the only thing keeping the few remaining California-based businesses in business. Take away the protection afforded by the people's tax revolt of 35 years ago, and the last few businesses still operating in California will leave.

Think the Legislature has trouble with the budget now, just wait until the only tax revenue coming in is from the gasoline tax as people fill their tanks to move out of the state.

ROD LUEDKE, West Hills

State can't afford reforms

My husband and I have lived in California all of our lives and if they do anything to Proposition 13, we will be out of California.

We are both retired and if we did not have Prop. 13, our property taxes would be out of sight. All the Legislature knows is spend, spend, spend, not how can we be responsible and stay within our budget. The majority of Californians have not stayed in their original homes, but purchased several in the past 35 years and are at the current rate in their new homes. So, the excuse that they are losing money is ridiculous.

When Gov. Jerry Brown was in office the first time, he was determined to have us lose Prop. 13 and now again, he just can't wait to get rid of it.

If we didn't have all the illegal immigrants in our state, using our schools, getting food stamps, welfare and now getting money for college, our state wouldn't be in the financial condition that it is in.

Wake up, California. We need new people in office who are not the cookie cutters that Gov. Brown wants to vote his agenda in. Do not change any part of Prop. 13. We cannot lose any more businesses. Ask Gov. Brown how many state retirements he is getting from us? Just one would be sufficient.

KATHY DEPP, Burbank

Assessments are fair

In 1978, voters were fed up with what Sacramento was doing. If the Legislature couldn't come up with enough money to support all its little programs, it would simply raise property taxes. It got so bad that the elderly were being forced out of the homes they lived in for years.

Finally, the people revolted and overwhelmingly voted for Prop. 13. Later, some people tried to overturn the vote, the vote stood and we have had fair property taxes ever since. Sacramento has tried over the years to re-do, undo, fix, change, repair the tax structure of Prop. 13, but it has failed.

Now, Tom Ammiano wants to "close a loophole'' that allows corporations to sidestep reassessments on properties they purchase. Are we surprised? Nope. Are we ready to stop them? I hope so.

The corporations in California are fast becoming obsolete. We continue to think that we can tax and regulate them and they will continue to pay for our never-ending stream of "unmet needs.'' If our state representatives think that the people have changed their minds about Prop. 13, they are in for a rude awakening.

Corporations in California are already over-taxed and over-regulated and are leaving this state. We have a very difficult time keeping them here, let alone attracting new businesses to this state so that we can lower our stagnant unemployment rate.

If Ammiano is successful, our unemployment rate will soar. Companies will close their doors and leave. Perhaps the supermajority of Democrats in Sacramento think that they have a mandate of the people.

I believe Gov. Jerry Brown will recall what it was like in 1978 when the people overwhelmingly voted for Prop. 13. He lost his credibility that year. And it's taken all this time to get it back.

CONNIE DOWNS, Ontario

Worth a laugh

Thanks! Your question, "Has it kept taxes too low in California,'' gave me my best laugh in a long time!

GEORGE ALLARIA, Torrance

Let it stand

Leave Proposition 13 alone. Let it stand as is.

Can't the California Legislature figure out how to run the government without increasing taxes? Why don't they cut out some of the expenses, like anything supporting any illegal immigrants living in this state.

CHARLENE VINCENT, Chatsworth

Don't tinker with it

The Legislature should "simply keep its mitts off'' the Propositon 13 protections. There was a reason the citizens of California overwhelmingly voted for Prop. 13: The state was driving people out of their homes with ever-increasing property taxes. We should never let that happen again, and it will if we start tinkering with Prop. 13.

KAREN HARLAN, West Hills

Stregthen protections

The only tinkering with Proposition 13 should be to strengthen its protections. Property taxes were to be capped at 1 percent of assessed value plus 2 percent annual value increases. Instead, we have many added items, in my case bringing assessment to 1.35 percent of assessed value. This is driving people out of Los Angeles and California. The burden continues to increase dramatically for senior citizens and others on fixed and limited incomes. Parcel taxes for anything, including schools and libraries, should continue to require two-thirds approval vote.

A simple majority should not be permitted as it weakens Prop. 13 protections and many of those approving are renters and non-property owners who will not pay for the assessment. It is unfair for non-property owners to vote additional taxes onto the backs of property owners.

If more money is needed for schools and libraries, then the direct users and beneficiaries should pay the increased taxes, not just property owners. We are already paying huge amounts for these services and significant amounts are being spent inefficiently and wastefully.

JUDY SHERMAN, Sylmar

Politicians to blame, not Prop. 13

Now is not the time to tamper with Proposition 13. First, it would bankrupt many seniors. Secondly, it would cause more and more businesses to leave California, following in the footsteps of so many others that have left this anti-business state.

Prop. 13 ain't broke, so do not try to fix it. Leave it alone. Prop. 13 did not get the state into the financial ruin that it's in; the politicians in Sacramento caused it with their out-of-control spending and their financially imprudent projects, i.e, the Bullet Train, the kind of projects that will derail the state even faster toward bankruptcy.

Please do not tamper with something that is working so well.

RICHARD F. CESARONI, Santa Clarita

Renters will be hurt

Proposition 13 has secured a stable income for myself and others without having to substantially increase the rental price to those renting.

By adjusting Prop. 13, rental prices can only increase and owners will be forced to sell and move their rental property investments to another state.

BILL RUZGIS, Long Beach

Proposed reassessment unfair

As to commercial properties, it seems that there are two options: Reassessments on corporate commercial properties only, or commercial properties whether owned by corporations or individuals.

We owned a manufacturing business that had to close (not be sold) after 50 years for many reasons. We owned three adjoining buildings where the plant was located. The largest property was sold to pay off all the debts of the business when it closed; we refused to declare bankruptcy. The other two we kept for our retirement income. We had no other income except for Social Security, which was low due to our taking rather low salaries.

The proposed property tax reassessment on commercial property is not fair, either to us as retirement income or when we had our small struggling business.

When we bought our house in Granada Hills in 1972 - our dream house to raise our four kids - we almost lost it. Large homes north of us were being built and selling for a much larger sum than we had paid or could afford. So our property taxes were going to be raised in 1975 to the prices of these homes, nearly a $4,000 increase in one year, we would have had to sell. Thanks to Prop. 13, we still have our home. The current level of assessment, a limit of 2 percent per year is fair.

Homes go up and down in value. Over the years, our home's value has been all over the place, sometimes varying up or down by thousands in short periods of time. Leave Prop. 13 alone.

SHARON L. UNDERWOOD, Granada Hills

Fix what already works?

Yeah, it has worked for 35 years (even with the issues), so let's fix it. Let us not leave anything working correctly in California state government. If it works, change it!

TIM McSHANE, Bellflower

Voters will fight back

Proposition 13 was passed to prevent the state and cities from using the parcel tax as an unlimited source of income whenever the government needed revenue.

If the politicians start to tinker with Prop. 13, residents and businesses will forcefully block any effort to make changes and will turn the tables on the politicians. How about zero percent increase per year and no increases when properties are sold? So politicians, don't even go there!

JON VANDERJAGT, Westchester

Firm believer in Prop. 13

I am the firm believer in Proposition 13. If it were not for this proposition, many people would not be able to stay in their homes because the leeches in Sacramento would be draining the last drop.

Do not change anything. If you change the business taxes then they will just leave.

LARRY E. POLLGREEN, Big Bear City

Consumer still pays

Who ultimately pays all the taxes? The consumer does. A "split roll'' property tax or any other form of commercial property tax increase will be paid by you and me.

California now has some of the highest income, gasoline, sales and business taxes in the country. That isn't enough for Sacramento?

Keep in mind what H.L. Menkin once said: "All government in its essence is organized exploitation and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well disposed man.''

DALE ROEHRKASSE, Glendale

Prop. 13 protects all

"Tinker'' with Proposition 13? Absolutely not. Millions of people (young and old) would lose their homes if they lost Prop. 13. They wouldn't be able to afford to keep their homes if their property taxes were not protected under Prop. 13.

Prop. 13 protects everyone, not only the property owners from 35 years ago, it also protects new home owners by not allowing their taxes to be increased by more than 2 percent per year. Even commercial property owners. Commercial property owners would only pass along the extra expense to the average guy (you and me) or be forced out of business.

Don't let the corrupt politicians take anything more away from us! Tell them to work within their budget and stop stealing from the American people.

DONNA SCHOTT, Northridge

Close corporate loophole

I am a senior homeowner and a widow. I live in the 7th Ward in the city of San Bernardino. There are areas of Proposition 13 that should be revisited or redone, especially those areas that don't have to do with keeping taxes low for those of us who are grandfathered-in.

The original intent of the proposition was to maintain a level of taxation that allowed folks to have a home for as long as they were able to live on their own. I don't believe it was meant to provide a loophole for corporations to sidestep reassessment. That loophole should be closed.

DIANNE STACEY, San Bernardino

Worth a political fight?

Is it time to fight the biggest political fight of the decade? Is the opinion of the Los Angeles Daily News (Jan. 7) misplaced as it regards Proposition 13? Though there is a desire by many politicians to blame Prop. 13 for the financial woes of local governments, it seems like an annual right of passage for some. We should be wary, but let's get the story straight first.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, like some other Democrats in the Assembly is probably misinformed about the real impact of Prop. 13 on commercial property. Let's take a look at the city of Glendale for example. In 1978, the property tax revenues was just under $6 million. By 2011, the property tax revenue had increased to $80 million. That increase is more than a 1,200 percent increase in revenues while the inflation rate went up by 353 percent. How would the Assemblyman square that data?

So Prop. 13 could not have been the culprit for the budgetary shortfall. Prop. 13 allows for re-assessment of property when the owner dies or the property is sold. It has been over 30 years since the law was enacted and millions of property owners have passed on along with their properties. In Glendale, thousands of single-family homes gave way to apartment buildings, increasing the property values of each parcel by more than 1,000 percent. New, large commercial buildings have sprung up bringing in huge amounts of property-tax revenue. The combination of these factors show up in large property tax revenue. So where is the problem?

No single action by the Legislature and the governor has impacted local government finances more than the pension changes of the past 13 years. The poster child of that abuse is the ex-police chief of Glendale who after only one year at the city of Bell under a rigged compensation system claimed a $450,000 annual pension and filed a suit against CalPERS to get it. Multiply this and tens of thousands of smaller abuses and you'll find all budgets across California strained to the point of bankruptcy.

Prop. 13 was, and still is, an imperfect but worthwhile restrain on governmental waste. We need to know with clarity the scope of the legislation that Assembly Ammiano is proposing. Let's keep our power dry and our emotional response at bay until we get a more comprehensive answer.

I am quite ashamed to be a California Democrat these days. The simple-minded California Democrat desires to destroy that which they cannot comprehend, business owners.

The California Democrat lacks the initiative, courage, responsibility and understanding of economics required to open a business. So, rather than making an attempt to comprehend and possess these qualities, they choose to destroy that which they do not comprehend.

The California Democrat-controlled state Legislature has now taken up the task of dismantling Prop. 13 in order to lay financial siege to business property owners. The California Democrat is not satisfied with having run many businesses out of California and placing thousands out of work. Our Democrat-controlled Legislature now intends to pit home owner against business owner by way of concocting a two-tier property tax assessment.

In short, "You home owners are the good guys and business owners are the bad guys. The business owner must be financially punished!''

I still hope for the day when a California Democrat will learn how to generate taxes rather than destroy the economy by their simple-minded philosophy of always raising taxes on business owners.

RAY MOORS, Chino

Budget considerations

At the time Proposition 13 was proposed, I was real estate agent. We all lamented that when someone purchased a re-sell home, property taxes would increase not just for that home, but surrounding ones that people had resided in for many years. I know, as it happened to me.

We purchased this home in 1975 and the property taxes actually doubled. Luckily, when Prop. 13 passed, the taxes reverted back to the tax base in 1975. It was quite a struggle for those two years. Being in real estate sales, we saw many older people have to sell their homes as they could not afford the increases.

I shudder to think what taxes might be today if not for Prop 13. The politicians have consistently tried to tweak Prop 13. Do NOT let them do it. People purchase a home based on their budget. It's time the greedy, spend-thrift politicians leave it alone - forever!

SHIRLEY OTT, Rancho Cucamonga

Repair inequity

The difference between similar, neighboring residential properties' property taxes should be eliminated to be fair to all.

To do this without undue burden on long-time property owners, set a plan in which properties with lower taxes increase at a calculated rate, and properties with higher taxes decrease at a calculated rate, such that the total taxes collected in a county can increase at up to 2 percent per year. The maximum increase or decrease would be 5 percent per year, and the two rates would be equal each year. New sales would have their taxes set to the average of nearby comparable properties.

STAN HORWITZ, Encino

Protect Prop. 13 for all

Proposition 13 has to be protected for the benefit of all. If it goes away, there will be a glut of empty homes on the market - bad for the state (no taxes being collected) and the banks that mortgage the property.

California is in a death spiral now, with more takers than makers.

We're senior citizens and can't afford an increase of $6,000 in our property tax. We voted for Prop. 13 so leave it alone.

RICHARD JACKSON, Glendora

Address commercial transfers

We need to address commercial property transfer, as businesses getting a free transfer the rest of us are paying for. This is about $6 billion in lost revenue, and lawmakers are looking at homeowners to make it up at every turn.

If the threshold is changed, we will be back to being taxed out of our homes.